Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CSDCheckBot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:18, 7 May 2009

Revision as of 22:42, 7 May 2009

Line 112:

:One way to avoid the problem of the taggee getting a negative impression from the tagger's talk page would be to use a link to a tool as I mentioned; that way, if the taggee runs the tool, he or she may see that admins are agreeing with the tagger in a large number of cases, and it will support rather than undermine the tagger. Also, if the taggee sees that the tagger has only made 2 reports in the last month and they were both rejected, then I think it would be better for the taggee not to take the tag too seriously. Also (lot of also's), I see the valid concerns over opt-in vs. opt-out being less of an issue over time if this works right; I'm hoping the number of disagreements over tagging go down over time. And for the many taggers who only tag once or occasionally, I expect their percentages won't improve over time, but that's fine; then the goal becomes letting them know that we don't consider tagging good-faith attempts for deletion to be a casual thing that we'll always overlook, and letting the taggees know that they're dealing with people who might not know what they're doing, despite the scary and authoritative-looking deletion tag. However, I do agree with Spartacus's thrust that we're going to get an earful if we start implying that deleting admins are right and the taggers are wrong; it's the wrong tone. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

::My first thought when I read your idea of a report that people run like the reports that show how often a user supported/opposed an RfA or how many contributions a user had, I liked the idea. I mean, I could see a grid showing the number of articles nominated by criteria and the number deleted per that criteria. That would help people with knowing how their edits are being handled, but I think one of the purposes of this should be to help users follow the outcome of their CSD noms. Thus, a proactive response would IMO be helpful.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b>^{<small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small>}</b>]]'' 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

:::I do not recall ever having stated that the messages would be phrased like a "warning". Not once. I have referred to the messages themselves vaguely as warnings a few times because it's a word I associate with what the bot is doing (because the implications of that word are apparently less absolute to me than they are to other people) but I never intended for their content to be interpreted as warnings. Nor were they ever intended to state with any degree of certainty that the editor's action was a "mistake"; the bot has no way of interpreting who is correct in the case of a conflict between a tag and a deletion. The situations that the bot logs are referred to as "mistakes" because it is the easiest term to refer to them as, generally they will be a mistake on someone's part in the absence of editing between the tagging and the later removal/deletion. The focus was never on chastisement or implications of retributive action upon failure to improve, the focus was on providing useful feedback to people who would otherwise not receive it. Any implications that my focus was elsewhere were utterly unintentional. However, I'm not going to start using "neutrally worded notification" and "situation that the bot detects" as a replacement for "message" and "mistake" in every post I leave here, that far exceeds my patience for such things.

:::If people are really going to have such a problem with receiving messages for every instance of a denial/deletion for alternative criteria, I still think that the second alternative I mentioned would be acceptable. That being that the bot keeps a log of CSD errors and notifies editors when that has happened to them enough times in a certain period of time. Assuming I'm able to divine the mysteries of merging MySQL and Python, said log will be maintained in a database that will be accessible on a toolserver page by everyone.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">&#x0436;</span>''']] 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The '''watchlist''' is the mechanism by which any editor can see what happens to an article. Anyone that knows Wikipedia well enough to be adding any sort of deletion tag should know how to use it. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 22:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

:To find out what happens to a page you tagged for speedy deletion, you first have to put every page you tag on your watchlist; this could get to be a large number of articles if you do it long enough. Then you have to remember which pages on your watchlist were the ones you tagged, and remember to check what happened if they are not deleted. And if you want to know whether or not a page was speedied for the criteria you tagged it for, you need to memorize the criteria you used for every page you tagged, and keep that in memory for the 15-20 minutes (or even longer at some times of day) it can take for a page to get deleted, so that you can go back and check to see if the criteria used by the deleting admin matches the criteria you tagged it for. It is not a surprise that people don't typically keep track of what happens to the page they tag.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">&#x0436;</span>''']] 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)